Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!dim
From: dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Kasaparov: at last a new champion !
Message-ID: <872@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 17:01:37 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.872
Posted: Thu Nov 14 17:01:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 01:20:59 EST
References: <359@tekchips.UUCP> <22300011@uiucdcsp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 18

> 
> >    Here is the 24th game in the "other" notation. (I believe the postings
> >    by Ken Thompson were in the algebraic notation. I forget what this
> >    notation is called).
> >
> >     1. P-K4	P-QB4		       22.R-R3	   B-N2
> >     2. N-KB3	P-Q3		       23.B-K3     R-K2
> 
> 
> This "other" notation is called "inferior."

Why be so harsh on descriptive notation.  In my opinion, it is much simpler
to get a (quick) idea of what is going on in a game if it is recorded in
descriptive notation.  For example, if you see something like 'ed', or 'e:d',
or whatever in an algebraic column, all you can deduce is that it is a pawn
doing the capturing, but you cannot tell what is being captured.  Descriptive
notation does not have this problem.  Also, algebraic notation comes in too
many varieties.  Be traditional.  Be classical.  Use Descriptive!